Home : Blogs : Leigh Brown Charlotte NC Broker/Owner : North Carolina Real Estate>>Charlotte NC Real Estate Specialist

Dear Mr/Ms Seller-Why I Avoid Dual Agency (or double dipping)

Dear Mr/Ms Seller-

I have discovered that many of my competitors are parading the fact that they sell so many of their own listings...doubling up or double dipping or dual agency. And they like to point out that I avoid it like the plague.

Allow me to explain my position.

I feel that when you select me as your listing agent, I become YOUR representation. I am responsible for your best interests-I negotiate for you, I am loyal and obedient to you, and I am accountable to you.

YES-I market your home. I market the devil out of it! I want buyer calls coming in strong! But I'll tell you-if one of those buyers wants your house, I don't want to work on their side. See, I feel that dual agency is inherently a conflict of interest. Do I qualify the leads from the sign? The flyers? The postcards? The print advertising? The internet? I sure do. And I promote all of the best qualities of your home. What if they want to see it? They will be set up to go with one of my buyer agents, or if they're not available, another agent in my office.

I do want your house to sell. I just want to work for ONLY you. How can I properly advise you if I know all of your financial nitty-gritty and also that of the buyer? Sure, I know the dialogues for handling this situation-but there will most likely still be that niggling thought in the back of your mind wondering if I sold you short. And I want you to rest soundly, safe in the confidence that I was working ONLY for you.

But wouldn't it be nice to keep all of the commission to myself? Sure-but at what cost? I would much rather split the commission on a co-brokerage situation and get you moved on with life at your best net profit situation. Money isn't everything. And if I treat you right, you'll tell all your friends and family-right? And if I treat my buyers right, by making sure that they also have proper representation, won't they also refer me?

So the next time you're interviewing Realtors for the opportunity to market your home, ask them very pointedly why exactly they think it's great to be riding the fence so many times in the course of a year. And think your way through the process.

I appreciate the opportunity to work with you in selling your home-and want you to know that YOU are my top priority. I may not be the one who sells your home-but I will most assuredly be the reason it sells!

****Disclaimer! I am an active real estate broker in the state of North Carolina and in the state of South Carolina. Each state has their own laws regarding agency, please consult with your Realtor in the state where your property is located.****

Posted by Leigh Brown Charlotte NC Broker/Owner on 11/24/2006 08:43 PM

Comments (60)

sellers, dual agency, charlotte nc real estate, concord nc real estate, harrisburg nc real estate

60 Comments on Dear Mr/Ms Seller-Why I Avoid Dual Agency (or double dipping)

NOV

2006

Being a dual agent and "double dippling" (earning both sides of the commission) are two separate things.

As a matter of personal policy I don't do dual agency; I have made the decision to remain the seller's agent if it's my listing.

However if someone wants to buy one of my listings from me I am delighted to let them.

I always explain their options to a potential buyer and almost all of the time they're OK with becoming my customer while the sellers remain my clients.

It's all in the presentation, of course. =) I just need to do a better job of explaining my position since there are a few agents in my market who are using it against me...and they're not succeeding since no client in the world wants to hear agents trash-talking one another...but I want to explain it up front a little stronger so they're in defensive mode.

Leigh.... some great points. And I always felt the same when a realtor is handling both sides. And don't read this the wrong way... this is just a general question for all, but you made me think about it when you brought it up. You mentioned if you had the listing and someone wanted to come in and look at it, that you would hand them over to another agent in your office. Two things.... 1... I know you trust the people that you work with, but can they be as good as you sometimes? I only ask this because I trust my loan officers. But not always with my best clients, because I know I give superior service...and it's one reason why I never started anything of my own so long ago. Just the mere fact that I think I work harder than many and that I actually know what I am doing. But this is also my opinion. 2. since you are handing this client over to someone that you work with.... wouldn't that be kind of the same thing? I mean..slightly.... because you are keeping all the profit in-house, per se. Again... just open for discussion. I like to get other view points... it's one way that I have learned so much in the past.

Last... did you get my messages earlier? I will be around all day tomorrow or Sunday. I just wanted to thank you.

We sold one of our large commercial listings to one of our investor clients a few months back...and yes...one of our brokers worked on the buy-side while I continued to represent the sell-side.

What Jeff said. In Texas, at least, the listing agreement and the buyer's rep agreement are with the broker, not the agent. So, if I have a listing and someone comes and wants to buy it and I hand them off to one of the agents in my office, they are still in an intermediary or dual-agency situation and both parties still have to have the appropriate notice given to them and signed by them, because both sides will come to the broker, if not to the individual agents. And the same restrictions come into play on the two agents as they would on the one. So I don't see how it's significantly different to the clients.

If the buyer chooses not to have representation, they have had agency clearly explained to them upon first meeting, and have a copy of the state-promulgated form explaining it, and have signed that they've received that information, so they know who I represent. If they choose to remain a customer, I'm happy to let them and I will be fair to all parties.

NOV

2006

Ok - here is a snapshot of what I mentioned in a previous blog, addressing something similar ...

Dual Agency is illegal in Colorado. I know that contract and agency laws are different state-to-state, but here is our scoop... Lawyers have NOTHING to do with our contracts, here. We, as agents, are legally liable for everything.

There are no subagents and EVERYONE in CO is a BROKER - no sales people, here!

Colorado is a STICKLER for contract and agency law. (We are one of the strictest and most complicated in the whole universe...AND we were the first state to come up with "agency" agreements) These are the ways we deal with being the Seller's Agent and "bringing" the buyer:

Remain the Seller's Agent and treat the Buyer as a customer- no fiduciary duties to Buyer.
Become a Transaction Broker (aide ONLY in the facilitation of the contract) for both the Seller and the Buyer.
If there is not another agent involved, Selling agent gets full commission.
If there is another agent involved (procuring cause- the reason the contract was written ...) then the commission gets paid out how it is detailed in the listing agreement.

Our take is that you CANNOT successfully and fully represent both the buyer and the seller. It is a conflict of interest. This is why DUAL AGENCY IS ILLEGAL, here. Now, if there is a close connection between you- the agent, and the seller, then it is up to you to decide whether or not you CAN be just a transaction broker. If it is you MOM, per se, then choice #1 is probably your best option.

Also, our laws state that if I have a listing and someone else in my office brings the buyer, we BOTH default to Transaction Broker status, because we are under the same broker.

Am I the only one here to admit to dual agency? Many of my sellers hire me because they want ME to find the buyer. I won't always represent both parties, depending on circumstances but, for the most part, I find when I am coordinating the communication and transactional details on both sides things run more smoothly.

I also agree with Jeff in that as Broker/Owner, the listing is held by the Broker and agents within that company that sell your listings are (should be) Dual Agents. In NY, agents for the broker ARE the broker. You are representing both sides if you sell a house listing. It sounds so nice as you describe it, to represent the seller only. But NY realized the inherent problem with this approach. The agency disclosure laws are pretty clear and starting Jan 1st, will be spelled out even more clearly. Not that I don't think some may take advantage and try to capitalize on a situation, but if full disclosure is adhered to including the use of designated agents in this type of situation and all parties understanding and agreeing in writing, then dual agency is not a problem. And if you work and advertise under the conditions you mention, you MUST be consistent and NEVER be a dual agent. I don''t see that as practical. ALSO.. as an afterthought: It would upset me as a REALTOR in your market to see this letter advertised if the practice there is acceptable. You are inadvertantly giving your competition and fellow REALTORS a bad name in an industry where some of the public think of us as sharks!!!

Hawaii is similar to a few mentioned already. If the two agents are from the same company they are dual agents. All listings are with the broker here. On our listing agreement one of the first questions is whether or not the seller will allow a dual agency. I have not had one client say no. They generally want every agent on the island trying to sell their home.

I agree that dual agency can be a big problem. In Hawaii if either client is not shown a dual agency agreement before signing any contracts the agent is not necessarily entitled to their commission. Secondly we have a new set of rules of conduct once a dual agency occurs. We now can not share information with either side that may hurt the other.

If I am selling certain condos for example myself and 2 or 3 other agents may be the dominant players in the project. If they elect no dual agency they just eliminated those agents from bringing buyers.

I personally would prefer not having a dual agency. I don't like having the extra liability. We have situations where the home my buyer wants is listed by another agent in my office.

Right on Carol.

Iowa is like Hawaii, well, in regards to agency anyway. I wish our climate was as well, Randy.

My sellers just want their properties sold. If they get what they want and are able to make their move....they're happy!

Does anyone remember the simpler days before "AGENCY". The seller pays the commission, we all represent the seller...hmmm.

Lucky

As was said earlier - every state is different.

I have my Sellers sign a Transaction Broker Notice - that way they know, up front, exactly what to expect from me as far as representation.

You're all right, each state is different. North Carolina recognizes designated agency if buyer and seller are from the same firm-it sets aside both buyer agent and seller agent as separate entitites, even though we are both under the same broker and paying $$ to the same (in my case) Uncle Remax. Designated doesn't scare me like dual does. Perhaps it's just me, but I can't sleep at night if there's even the slightest thought that maybe I said or did something inadvertently. In regard to calls-I do the qualifying so I can trumpet my listing first, and my buyer agents are highly trained (by me and by StarPower University) before they hit the streets. If in qualifying the buyer, there's not a fit for my listings, i might keep the buyer or might go ahead and farm it out to a buyer agent (which is the case 99% of the time). And Pete-I'm not trying to slam my competition-just trying to articulate why I do what I do-they're using my approach to slam me and all I want-and I think all of us want-is better informed consumers who can ask intelligent questions-and make the best choice for themselves. Like Carol-it runs smoother if both sides are on my team....that's why i have buyer agents, so we can make for a smooth transaction and still separate the two sides.

And one more thought-I think that my sellers are hiring me to get their home sold...not necessarily sell it myself. and I try very hard to make life VERY easy for other agents in my market so that it's a good thing to sell one of my listings since i'll make them look great to their buyers. I think my job is to get people through the door-no matter who their agent is-so the house will sell. No way I can control all the buyers in the marketplace with over 14000 active listings and more buyers than that cruising at any given time. Statistically-it doesn't make sense that I'd sell all my own listings anyway. So I want to take the position of fully standing on the seller's side. Does that make better sense? I swannee-I don't think I come across very well on here sometimes.

Leigh,

Don't be so hard on yourself. You got a lot of people talking about a very important topic in our industry...our client's best interest. It's these discussions that bring about change...hopefully for the better.

Thanks!

Lucky

Leigh

Dual and Designated Agencies are here to stay. Some states will continue to upgrade disclosure requirements and how parties are to be served. In Virginia, we have the full range of options in dealing with unrepresented buyers. My personal preference is single agency. If buyers approach me without a Buyer Agent and want to negotiate the price based on the lack of another agent in the process, most of my sellers are okay with that. I am very clear with them about who I represent, have them sign disclosure docs and encourage them to hire an attorney, real estate consultant or their own buyer agent. Yes, I usually end up doing a little more coordinating than I might otherwise need to do, but I've never had a representation or disclosure problem going this route.

Leigh, if you let one of your buyer agents hendle the buyer on one of your listings, isn't that still dual agency? Florida used to be a dual agency state, but now if you aren't a single agent, you can be a transaction agent - and here, if you have one of your byuyer agent's working on one of your listings, you can't be a single agent, and would then generally transition to a transaction agent.

Leigh,

You have explained yourself very well! And I think your position is very commendable. As you say,though, we all have to follow the laws in our states, and I am sure there are some Realtors who would dissagree with your position. (I suspect mostly due to the money!)

In my state, we do have dual agency. And to be honest, I hate it.

I personally feel like I have to basically "keep my mouth shut" during thr entire transaction. How is that in any way supporting either side? I wish it was illegal here, then it would not be a problem.

The fact that as agents we are all representing the Seller in all our Broker's listings is also a problem. It makes for many difficulties. We compete on one hand and unite on the other?

Good post and a lot of thoughtful comments here on what I believe to be one of the most parodoxal duties in Real Estate.

In our state of NH Dual Agency is legal. There are Broker Owners that still don't understand it fully.

Our previous NHAR state attorney had one word that describes Dual Agency.........."DEFENDANT"

It is extremely tough to walk a fine line and I am sure there are agents out there that when they are in a dual agency position tend to drift towards advocating for the person they are closer too.

What I mean is we have a company of 11 offices and about 300 agents. The agency relationship flows through the BROKER OWNER. I may have a listing here in Hampstead and an agent from our Derry office may already be representing a buyer and may want to show my listing. Once that happens we are in a disclosed dual agency position. I will probably never interact with that buyer but I still represent him and his agent represents my seller too.

I have always liked how Colorado takes care of this issue. I have listened to Oliver Franscona dating back to 1989 when buyer broker agency first came to this area but his teachings never took off here. New Englanders are not quick to change.

Over the years Monika and I have been able to sell customers our own listings easily; due to the fact that they are well informed before we all walk through the door of the home they want to see.

Thanks Jay

NC doesn't have transaction brokers at all. My buyer agents are still independent agents-I just give them leads and keep part of the commission dollars based on our agreed splits. We operate as designated agency on anything I have listed. I do like that NC is mirroring a lot of what CO does-including eliminating salesperson licenses and going to a broker only state. I just hope that dual agency goes away next.

"The Lovely Leigh"

I don't like dual agency either. I was very happy when The Florida Real Estate Commission (FREC) did away with this...

Just some interesting questions for you. I thought N.C. was a reciprocal license state with Florida. Has that changed?

I could be wrong. Is it S.C. that is reciprocal?

If your state is reciprocal, would that not effect our positions on agency law?

TLW "The Lovely Wife"...No Double Dips Here...ROAR!

Leigh, I know exactly what you are saying and agree 100%. I also do not work with buyers on my listings. Even though I can as a transaction Broker. I just prefer not to. I refer them out to other Realtors in my area. Personally I do not even want to know the buyers. This way I'm not tempted in any way to NOT negotiate as strong as I can for me sellers. My sellers know at time of listing that I will not be the one selling their house.

In my opinion someone that thinks they can neogotiate better for their seller when they are also working worth the buyers, is fooling themselves. The argument of course is "well I can be fair to both parties". Well when I am working for a seller my goal is not be fair to both parties. My goal is to get the highest and price for my seller.

Great post Leigh.

Leigh,

Just a curious question. What did you do before Buyer's Agency and then Dual Agency?

I understand you point and if you have a team it would be easy to pass that customer on so they can be a client with a team person, and you would be a referral?

How many times really would that customer that would like to see one of your listings turn out and buy it verses see another home and then buy the other home? Did you loose out or not? This could be potiental referrals from this customer that you are also loosing out on.

Again, I understand the principal. This is just food for thought.

This is a tough subject and/or position for me. I admit that I've struggled with this issue. I sold a large piece of property a few years ago and the agent held both sides. things happened that I wonder who the agent was really working for? I'm glad that you wrote about it. I believe it's something that is good to talk about. It'll help to share different prospectives.

Leigh.... like Lucky Lang had said... don't be so hard on yourself. I think for the most part you did explain yourself very well. And yes, each state is different. I just wanted to throw out that question, because I am not a realtor, but that was the first thought that came across my mind.

Leigh... I truly do believe that you act in your clients best interest, as Bryant does, because of how you explained yourself and what you do when you get both sides. Thumbs up....

I still feel that, whatever the laws of a particular state are, the reality is that if there is a conflict of interest and you can't be trusted not to take advantage of that, that conflict and that lack of trustworthiness exist whether you, yourself, do both parts of the deal or you refer it to another agent in the same brokerage. If your broker gets both sides of the deal, that conflict exists whether it's you and another agent in the brokerage or just you. It may be easier for the agents, and a mistake might be easier to avoid (in fact, that's almost certainly the case), but it doesn't erase the conflict of interest.

Which is to say, my logic tells me that the only way to accomplish what you say you're accomplishing, Leigh, avoiding that conflict of interest, would be if you referred the buyer to an agent outside of your brokerage entirely, and didn't take a referral fee for doing so.

NC isn't reciprocal with FL, which is very distressing to all the folks who are relocating here with licenses! We are reciprocal with SC, though. NC had buyer agency before I came into the business in 2000 so I've not dealt with a world that didn't have both. And you know, if i lose out on a buyer who doesn't buy my listing-that's fine-I'm on to the next deal. I'm fortunate enough to have enough business that I don't have to sweat over every lead. But again, that's why I qualify the calls myself before passing them on. If they don't fit my listing (price range, size or room requirements etc), then sure, I can keep them and sell something else. i do control all of my calls for a very specific reason-and it's because no one knows my listings better than me so I can promote my listings first.

And FYI-i CAN be trusted not to take advantage of dual agency, Tricia. I just choose not to put myself in a position where it could ever come into play.

The key up here (NH) is understanding that DDA is not FULL representation..it is limited. You still owe to both sides (seller/buyer) the fiduciary duties of confidentiality, accounting, reasonable care and diligence what is compromised or limited is Obedience, Loyalty and disclosure.

As long as all parties understand what DDA really is, the limitation's of it and want to proceed...it can be done successfully.

No, no, Leigh, I didn't mean that you couldn't be trusted not to take advantage of it, or, for that matter, not to ever slip and make a mistake (which is the real, more common, danger, it seems to me). I was just following my natural tendency to take an issue, aside from the individual personalities in the discussion, and follow it to its natural logical conclusion. And that opinion is where that process led me.

Nothing to do with you, personally, at all, but just the concept of being able to get rid of a "conflict of interest' in the way you describe, when your broker would still be getting both sides of the deal. A conflict of interest still exists whether you, personally, have both sides of the deal or not, as long as the same person/company benefits from representing both parties, is what I was saying.

Thank you for clearing that up for me...:0)...TLW...ROAR!

I think one thing we all need to keep in mind responding to her post is that agency is practiced differently in almost every state there is.

Where ever you are you gotta play the hand your state deals you.

In Tennessee we have designated agency which means our broker can designate one agent in the company to be the seller's agent and another to be the buyer's agent.

Tennessee law goes on to say the broker is specifically NOT a dual agent in this instance.

The default position, if you don't have any sort of signed agency agreement with a consumer, is 'facilitator'.

In Connecticut dual agency is legal. I only list property and have buyer's agents but it is still considered dual agency here if it is sold within the same firm. We sell many of our own listings primarily because we market them heavily on the internet.

" I think one thing we all need to keep in mind responding to her post is that agency is practiced differently in almost every state there is.

Where ever you are you gotta play the hand your state deals you. "

Agreed! This is why I specifically excepted the law in my post above; I was more interested in the situation that the various laws were created to deal with, that is, the conflict of interest that can occur when agents within a single brokerage are representing both sides of the deal because a buyer represented by that brokerage wants to buy a house listed by that brokerage. I don't think any of the laws eliminate the problem, they are just differing ways of dealing with the fact that it exists.

The only law that could eliminate the problem,as near as I can figure out (give me another one if you've got it!) would be one that stated that a buyer represented by a brokerage COULD NOT buy a house that was listed by that brokerage, or a law stating that every brokerage, not agent, had to be either a buyer's agent or a seller's agent all the time.

"The only law that could eliminate the problem,as near as I can figure out (give me another one if you've got it!) would be one that stated that a buyer represented by a brokerage COULD NOT buy a house that was listed by that brokerage, or a law stating that every brokerage, not agent, had to be either a buyer's agent or a seller's agent all the time."

I would be opposed to such a law on a whole bunch of levels.

As a "BiSalesual" listing licensee my goal is to get my listing sold; ideally by me, but I'm also OK with another licensee selling it. I want to sell my own listing because I then earn all the commission my seller agreed to pay me. If anyone has a problem with that it's your problem, not mine.
Our firm has a 25% share of the local market. To exclude our buyers from that pool of homes would be to do them a huge disservice.
If someone wants to buy one of my listings from me they do so as my customer and I remain the seller's agent. I explain this very carefully to them, get all the appropriate disclosures signed and even offer to let them find another agent to represent them if they choose. Almost none do.

I believe we have plenty of laws already in place to protect consumers and that we have obligations as Realtors to be honest with everyone in the transaction.

REALTOR Code of Ethics

"Article 1
When representing a buyer, seller, landlord, tenant, or other client as an agent, REALTORS^® pledge themselves to protect and promote the interests of their client. This obligation to the client is primary, but it does not relieve REALTORS^® of their obligation to treat all parties honestly. When serving a buyer, seller, landlord, tenant or other party in a non-agency capacity, REALTORS^® remain obligated to treat all parties honestly. (Amended 1/01)"

Arizona is one of the remaining (shrinking) pool of states that permit Dual Agency. We don't like it, and never practice Single Agent dual agency. The disclosure form draws a distinction between Single Agent Dual Agency and Two Agent Dual Agency. Dual Agency is caused by both agents being associated with the same Broker. I hope Arizona goes the same way as many and eliminates dual agency. Who wants to go to court and have the same attorney represent both parties??

Leigh,

I serve both Idaho and Washington and the rules are a little different on each side of the river. In Washington you do not have to have a buyers rep agreement, so If I have a listing there, and I get a random call on the property, I let them know that they are a customer and I represent the seller. In Idaho, we usually have representation on both sides and I explain that if I end up with duel agency, I am more like a neutral mediator. I list a lot of fsbo's and do this with a partner, and many times when it comes to negotiations my partner and I kind up put up walls. One will discuss the transaction with the seller and the other will take the buyer. It makes it more fair. Of course there is a grey area, we know a little on each side, but If I was to write an offer, I would give it to my partner and she will present it and if needed counter. Then gives it to me to take to the buyer.We do not discuss with each other what was said in the conference and it has worked well with our clients. Our sellers are okay with that, and they know it is still duel agency as do the buyers and they feel more comfortable.

I agree with you, Jim! I just can't see any other way to eliminate the problem that totally eliminates it - anything else (even two agents in the same brokerage serving the buyer and seller) only puts a band-aid on it.

I think it's a problem that we have to live with (because, after all, among other things what if one agent for the broker has a buyer's rep agreement with a buyer and another one gets a listing agreement for the Perfect House for the buyer; what do you do then?), sort of like gravity (there's airplanes, there's bungee jumping, there's hang-gliding, all different solutions to the "problem" of gravity, but the fact of gravity isn't going to go away). We just come up, within the parameters of what the states have come up with in the way of the equivalent of signs that say "warning: gravity exists and you could fall down", with our personal way of handling it that feels best to us).

This is such a great discussion! One of the reasons I do enjoy AR so much-you don't get to experience this anywhere else. Thanks to all who have put so much thought and drawn on their experiences to provide insight.

I agree I love reading how things are done all over the country. Especially DDA stuff as it is always such a hot topic. We just had a big DDA case go through the court system here in NH and after the results I thought for sure there would be a big movement underfoot to eliminate it from our books but so far very little impact. I still say done right and fully disclosed it can be done sucessfully. Just not an easy thing.

Maryland permits Dual Agency. But, it doesn't force it. We can sell our listings to a CUSTOMER. If the buyer wants their own agent, they can go get one. I'm not giving them one of our agents to be their agent.

This isn't rocket science. Problem is, too many folks don't know how to tell a potential buyer that we can sell you this house, but we can't be YOUR agent. We are the seller's agent. If you wish to buy the house as a customer, here's the contract.

I give the public credit for NO knowledge. Unfortunately, too many agents believe that they MUST represent the buyer when they are talking to the buyer and that they MUST represent the seller when talking to the seller.

I think that's what is known as TALKING OUT OF BOTH SIDES OF YOUR MOUTH AT THAT SAME TIME. They are the agents that get into trouble and give the rest of us a terrible reputation.

Sounds like in many states where dual agency is permitted, the listing agent will not represent the buyer, or at least is not seeking to. What happens if a buyer is found and they are so happy with you, the listing agent, that they insist you also 'represent' them? How would you handle that situation?

"Sounds like in many states where dual agency is permitted, the listing agent will not represent the buyer, or at least is not seeking to. What happens if a buyer is found and they are so happy with you, the listing agent, that they insist you also 'represent' them? How would you handle that situation?"

Dear Mr. Buyer,

I have long ago made the personal decision to only represent the seller on the sale of one of my listings.

I hope you can appreciate that loyalty. As a REALTOR I also am ethically obligated to treat all parties to a real estate transaction honestly.

If you still feel you need a representative to represent you in the purchase of this house I can either recommend someone to you or you're perfectly free to go find your own.

HOWEVER, whether or not you have your own agent; that will probably not affect the final selling price one way or the other. The seller has a price he's willing to sell for and you no doubt have a maximum price you're willing to pay.

So should I start filling out this sales contract now???

great blog but here in california this done all day long and its legal

Excellent conversation. I can see both sides of theissue and people feel very passionately about them. It is great to see!

NOV

2006

Good Discussion.

In NC, not all firms practice Designated Agency, but when it is practiced it is still Dual Agency.

You can't have Designated without Dual.

Some of our agents will only designate. Others do dual all the time.

There is a lot of confusion on this issue.

We are having In House trainings all this month on Agency. Our owner wants everyone to attend.

BTW, NC is an all Broker state as of 2006.

NOV

2006

Could someone expand on <all Broker state as of 2006>...My Son is getting his RE license in NC...Could you help me with this guys. Need more general info to pass along to the younger generation. I will have him tune into this post. He can learn a few things here as well...TLW...ROAR!

We used to have a salesperson license in NC as well as a broker license...now the salesperson status is gone, all new licensees are 'provisional' brokers until they complete additional hours of licensing class. basically moving liability onto each agent and off of the office brokers, to a large extent. it makes me glad, we need all the training we can get for new people. also, they implemented a rule that DELIGHTS me-you have to have two years' full time experience in real estate before you can become a BIC. no more opening an office the day you get your license...

Also the Broker License is a 90 hour course as opposed to the previous 60 hr sales person course.

As before there are 2 tough tests to pass.

NC is known to have a difficult exam. With a high failure rate.

Ladies...Thank you! You are most helpful. I emailed this post to our Son. He is moving to Havelock. Are either of you near him? 2 years...WOW...But that's a good thing. As you have pointed out that eliminates the new Realtor flybys...We appreciate anything you would like to say on this topic and any words of wisdom you may feel inclined to offer...TLW...ROAR!

TLW,we are in Wilmington, about 100 miles from Havelock.

The lovely Michele Connors would be close to Havelock, about 15-20 miles.

Michelle are you there????

BTW, what bring your son this way?

Ginger

Hey. That's right Michelle is there. I forgot. :))

He is Career Marine. He has been transferred to Cherry Point.

He only has a few more years left and then he will come home and work as a Broker in the family biz.

I am just trying to gather the basic licensing info so he can read this and learn. He has been reading AR for the last 2 months. He is absorbing all of us. Especially you Ladies in NC.

He leaves for Havelock just after Christmas.

He will need a place to hang his license and acquire further training. I am feeling out the Market for him...

That's what good Mom's do when the Son decides he wants to become a Broker like his Dad. We are proud...Does it show? :0)

TLW "The Lovely Wife"...You Who Michele We Need You...ROAR!

Too bad he's not going to be at Fort Bragg-I know a fabulous company there...haven't dealt with anything at Cherry Point (besides the fact that I almost married a career marine and would have been there on s few tours-close call that one!) Good luck to your son-I'm pretty sure I speak for Michele and Ginger alike in saying that we'll be glad to help however we can!

That's sweet. We thank you. I emailed him and gave him links to all your profiles. Don't worry he won't bother you. He is going to check out all your Web sites. Fort Bragg, am I correct that it is ARMY? TLW...ROAR!

Semper Fi! We are kind of connected to the Marines...

We adopted our adorable Bella from a career Marine.

His Mom is an agent with out company....

Her son is Special Ops and was being sent overseas to Israel. He had 2 dogs and since he was divorced after he got the dogs, he had to find them a home. His Mom sent pictures of Bella via email to all the company agents, and well the rest is history.

In March she came down from Va. Beach to live with us. had She is 4 years old. We are sooo in love!

NOV

2006

Absolutely, When I discuss this subject the local old guard gets defensive and eats me alive. I just do not know how I can perform my fudiciary dute by representing both sides of the transaction. So do I try to get the buyer the best price or the seller the highest price at the same time. What if a lawsuit where to occur am I both on the plaintiff and defendants table or possibly I am the defendant do to my past greedy position.

Yes folks on this issue alone we as a profession could actually elevate ourselves above the ranks of car salesmen and attorney's. But do we want to ? I certainly do.......

DEC

2006

Leigh,

This is a great article and thanks for submitting it to the Carnival of Active Rain!

It was a very tough category to judge and I had to read all the posts several times before I was able to pick a winner.

Keep up the great work!

DEC

2006

Leigh,

I am proud of you and other real estate professionals who choose not to practice dual agency. Putting your clients' interests first is an admirable quality, in my book.

MAR

2007

Hi Doug-I'm not suggesting that all agents who practice dual agency are unethical-but I am stating that there are a LOT of agents out there using it as a tool and hurting the seller and buyer at the same time. As long as there are snake agents who are not fully informing buyers and sellers of their options, I will remain someone who thinks it should be outlawed. It's just too muddy for me personally and I do not want my clients to ever wake up in the middle of the night thinking that I might have sold them short.

Leigh, there are agents ("snakes") out there practicing just about everything we do and harming sellers and buyers in the process. If we use that as a guide as to whether something should be illegal or not, then our entire field should be illegal.

Tricia, that is SO true! I just think that this is one area in particular that is prime territory for the less-than-ethical among us. And if you force folks onto one side of the transaction or the other you're making progress toward eliminating the conflict of interest.

JUL

2008

Leigh, this is a great post and you are right, this is a great discussion. go back and re-post this to a few popular groups like realtor, etc.

Leave a response…

Name:

Email:
(optional)

Comment:

What does the graphic say?